500-word draft:

The societal standard for food consumption among humans is quite straightforward. You kill the animal, prepare it, and eat it. Although many just pick their meat from the store without much recognition of the animal that was just slaughtered. Is it actually that easy for us? Do we lack moral principles and a basic regard for the life we are taking in order to survive? There are people that cherish and respect animals, of course, but what about the rest? When did humanity stop upholding these ideals?  In an article “Consider the Lobster,” David Foster Wallace raises these issues as he explores the customs surrounding serving lobster to people. Personally, I was told when I was younger that the lobster does not feel anything, yet after reading Wallace’s article I disagree. (need a thesis).

Wallace keeps asking crucial questions about the anatomy of the lobster, particularly whether or not it can experience pain. Which begs the question of whether we give a damn about how we slaughter these animals without thinking twice about it. Wallace states “The fact that even the most highly evolved nonhuman mammals can’t use language to communicate with us about their subjective mental experience is only the first layer of additional complication in trying to extend our reasoning about pain and morality to humans” (505. 1). So how can we recongize if lobsters are feeling pain when we place them into a boiling pot of water? Many people avoid the subject and claim that they “cannot feel anything”, but we are unable to determine this for sure. Animals cannot express their feelings in the same manner that humans can at any time. People lack the values and respect to truly know if we are hurting these animals for our own pleasure. In contrast, Ross Andersen’s article “What the Crow Knows” makes the presumption that we can understand an animal’s emotions and whether or not it is sentient. Andersen brings up this discussion by stating “ …philosophers tend to regard such statements as the best possible evidence of another being’s consciousness, even among humans. Without one, no matter how long I stared into the crow’s black pupil, wishing I could see into the phantasmagoria of its mind, I could never really know whether it was conscious” (4. 2).  In this article Andersen is studying crows by monitoring their behavior to determine their level of consciousness. By doing so he is able to inform us about how well developed the mind of a crow is to then represent countless other organisms that may be more conscious then we believe. As Wallace suggests, we are not capable of understanding whether an animal is experiencing pain due to the fact they can not speak to us. As for Andersen he is also describing how we are not entirely sure of these emotions but we can try to understand them. Both authors of these articles are attempting to prove that just because they can not tell us they are in pain does not mean they are not experiencing it. This perspective of the two, can allow us to question our practices and how we manage these animals for consumption. As well as just cause we can eat these animals, should we be ignoring the fact that they would most likely  prefer not to be getting butchered or boiled alive. 

800-word draft:

The societal standard for food consumption among humans is quite straightforward. You kill the animal, prepare it, and eat it. Although many just pick their meat from the store without much recognition of the animal that was just slaughtered. Is it actually that easy for us? Do we lack moral principles and a basic regard for the life we are taking in order to survive? There are people that cherish and respect animals, of course, but what about the rest? When did humanity stop upholding these ideals?  In an article “Consider the Lobster,” David Foster Wallace raises these issues as he explores the customs surrounding serving lobster to people. Personally, I was told when I was younger that the lobster does not feel anything, yet after reading Wallace’s article I disagree. (need a thesis).

Wallace keeps asking crucial questions about the anatomy of the lobster, particularly whether or not it can experience pain. Which begs the question of whether we give a damn about how we slaughter these animals without thinking twice about it. Wallace states “The fact that even the most highly evolved nonhuman mammals can’t use language to communicate with us about their subjective mental experience is only the first layer of additional complication in trying to extend our reasoning about pain and morality to humans” (505. 1). So how can we recongize if lobsters are feeling pain when we place them into a boiling pot of water? Many people avoid the subject and claim that they “cannot feel anything”, but we are unable to determine this for sure. Animals cannot express their feelings in the same manner that humans can at any time. People lack the values and respect to truly know if we are hurting these animals for our own pleasure. In contrast, Ross Andersen’s article “What the Crow Knows” makes the presumption that we can understand an animal’s emotions and whether or not it is sentient. Andersen brings up this discussion by stating “ …philosophers tend to regard such statements as the best possible evidence of another being’s consciousness, even among humans. Without one, no matter how long I stared into the crow’s black pupil, wishing I could see into the phantasmagoria of its mind, I could never really know whether it was conscious” (4. 2).  In this article Andersen is studying crows by monitoring their behavior to determine their level of consciousness. By doing so he is able to inform us about how well developed the mind of a crow is to then represent countless other organisms that may be more conscious then we believe. As Wallace suggests, we are not capable of understanding whether an animal is experiencing pain due to the fact they can not speak to us. As for Andersen he is also describing how we are not entirely sure of these emotions but we can try to understand them. Both authors of these articles are attempting to prove that just because they can not tell us they are in pain does not mean they are not experiencing it. This perspective of the two, can allow us to question our practices and how we manage these animals for consumption. As well as just cause we can eat these animals, should we be ignoring the fact that they would most likely  prefer not to be getting butchered or boiled alive. 

When it comes to morals and behaviors of humans towards animal consumption it varies. There are many who have traditions and those with certain cultures that have ways of showing respect to the animals they kill and consume. When in comparison there are traditions of those who do not recognize the sacrifice of animals to put that meal on the table. In Wallace’s article he starts off by discussing the Maine Lobster Festival that has been an annual event for 56 years. This festival produces around 25,000 pounds of fresh Maine lobster to be consumed in the World’s Largest Lobster Cooker. Regarding the Maine Lobster Festival, Wallace states “great mass of Americans all eating lobster, and thus to be more or less impelled to think hard about lobster and the experience of buying and eating lobster, it turns out that there is no honest way to avoid certain moral questions. … it’s not just that lobsters get boiled alive, it’s that you do it yourself — or at least it’s done specifically for you, on-site” (505. 2). To many people this festival to the locals is a tradition and something they appreciate. Yet you can not ignore the indignity for the lobsters as they are caught and waiting to get boiled all day long. Although the festival may be important to the locals it still lacks respect and decency for the lobster you are going to consume among thousands.

1000-word draft:

The societal standard for food consumption among humans is quite straightforward. You kill the animal, prepare it, and eat it. Although many just pick their meat from the store without much recognition of the animal that was just slaughtered. Is it actually that easy for us? Do we lack moral principles and a basic regard for the life we are taking in order to survive? There are people that cherish and respect animals, of course, but what about the rest? When did humanity stop upholding these ideals?  In an article “Consider the Lobster,” David Foster Wallace raises these issues as he explores the customs surrounding serving lobster to people. Personally, I was told when I was younger that the lobster does not feel anything, yet after reading Wallace’s article I disagree. (need a thesis).

Wallace keeps asking crucial questions about the anatomy of the lobster, particularly whether or not it can experience pain. Which begs the question of whether we give a damn about how we slaughter these animals without thinking twice about it. Wallace states “The fact that even the most highly evolved nonhuman mammals can’t use language to communicate with us about their subjective mental experience is only the first layer of additional complication in trying to extend our reasoning about pain and morality to humans” (505. 1). So how can we recongize if lobsters are feeling pain when we place them into a boiling pot of water? Many people avoid the subject and claim that they “cannot feel anything”, but we are unable to determine this for sure. Animals cannot express their feelings in the same manner that humans can at any time. People lack the values and respect to truly know if we are hurting these animals for our own pleasure. In contrast, Ross Andersen’s article “What the Crow Knows” makes the presumption that we can understand an animal’s emotions and whether or not it is sentient. Andersen brings up this discussion by stating “ …philosophers tend to regard such statements as the best possible evidence of another being’s consciousness, even among humans. Without one, no matter how long I stared into the crow’s black pupil, wishing I could see into the phantasmagoria of its mind, I could never really know whether it was conscious” (4. 2).  In this article Andersen is studying crows by monitoring their behavior to determine their level of consciousness. By doing so he is able to inform us about how well developed the mind of a crow is to then represent countless other organisms that may be more conscious then we believe. As Wallace suggests, we are not capable of understanding whether an animal is experiencing pain due to the fact they can not speak to us. As for Andersen he is also describing how we are not entirely sure of these emotions but we can try to understand them. Both authors of these articles are attempting to prove that just because they can not tell us they are in pain does not mean they are not experiencing it. This perspective of the two, can allow us to question our practices and how we manage these animals for consumption. As well as just cause we can eat these animals, should we be ignoring the fact that they would most likely  prefer not to be getting butchered or boiled alive. 

When it comes to morals and behaviors of humans towards animal consumption it varies. There are many who have traditions and those with certain cultures that have ways of showing respect to the animals they kill and consume. When in comparison there are traditions of those who do not recognize the sacrifice of animals to put that meal on the table. In Wallace’s article he starts off by discussing the Maine Lobster Festival that has been an annual event for 56 years. This festival produces around 25,000 pounds of fresh Maine lobster to be consumed in the World’s Largest Lobster Cooker. Regarding the Maine Lobster Festival, Wallace states “great mass of Americans all eating lobster, and thus to be more or less impelled to think hard about lobster and the experience of buying and eating lobster, it turns out that there is no honest way to avoid certain moral questions. … it’s not just that lobsters get boiled alive, it’s that you do it yourself — or at least it’s done specifically for you, on-site” (505. 2). To many people this festival to the locals is a tradition and something they appreciate. Yet you can not ignore the indignity for the lobsters as they are caught and waiting to get boiled all day long. Although the festival may be important to the locals it still lacks respect and decency for the lobster you are going to consume among thousands. In comparison to “What the Crow Knows” Anderson explains Jain monks throughout the article and how they treat animals. He states “ Jains move through the world in this gentle way because they believe animals are conscious beings that experience, in varying degrees, emotions analogous to human desire, fear, pain, sorrow, and joy” (2. 4). (almost done w analysis)

 With the lack of knowledge, or those wishing not to know how these animals really feel after murdering them, it represents the disrespect and negligence we have. Flipping the script as if we were the meal for the animals, we would personally not want to be murdered grusemly. Although it is vital for us that we have this protein in our diet we could show an ounce of respect for the lives we are taking. These are living things. We show no care for how we kill them as long as we get the tasty meal in the end. After reading these two articles, how can someone dismiss the way we treat these animals? We simply should not. We should respect and value the sacrifice of lives for our survival. Rather than murdering and letting them suffer for our own pleasure. 

Final Draft: